Loading...In my previous post on the narratives of the Old Testament, I talked about God’s complete intolerance with the “other” – the non-Israelite who might influence his people to worship other gods and not obey his laws. The other had to be destroyed in order to preserve the purity of his people. It did not matter if some, many, or most of these others were decent, loving human beings who cared for their children and did acts of kindness, doing the best to help others and be good people. They were to be destroyed. Every one of them in the city of Jericho: man, woman, child, and, well, the animals for good measure.
The taking of Jericho is the first major battle of the book, and others follow suit. To illustrate, here is the one that comes next, less known to Bible readers today but equally instructive (and gruesome) (and with an interesting military tactic).
Again, this come from my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Oxford University Press).
******************************
The Battle of Ai
The total commitment of God, and Joshua, to the policy of herem (the need to destroy everything that could be a corrupting influence; see the previous post) explains the next intriguing story, the Battle of Ai. Joshua’s spies tell him…
If you were a member of the blog, you could read this and every post — five a week on all sorts of things connected to the Bible from a non-sectarian perspective. It costs little to join, and every penny goes to help those in need. So why not? Click here for membership options
Dr Bart Ehmran,
I have mentioned these slaughters to christians and they say that those cities had already been warned by prophets before these attacks, is there anything that supports this view?
Not in the BIble, the only source that tells the stories, no.
What sources do you think they use for such claims, Dr Bart Ehmran?
Almost certainly there were stories that had long been in circulation, oral traditions told from one person and one generation to the next.
Oh, I just saw a bit on CNN about a woman explaining why she wouldn’t take the vaccine. She said God was ‘separating the sheep from the goats’ and proudly announced that she was ‘not a sheep.’ She should probably read her Bible a bit more.
On the other hand, she may be right.
It seems that the closest we have in the modern world to traditional biblical values is ISIS.
According to Jeremiah, scribes were experts in telling lies.
Jeremiah 8: 8 “How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” Scribes cannot be trusted.
According to John 39-47, Jesus’s enemies, the rightful owners of the Old Testament, were the greatest liars, murderer, and the devil.
John 8:44 “You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
Jesus and his followers never believed in the Old Testament, so were all the Prophets of God. Jesus had a different holy book named Injeel(Gospel of Jesus).
The Truth from God, Most Merciful “… We Ordained for the Children of Israel: that whoever kills a person—unless it is for murder or corruption on earth—it is as if he killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves it, it is as if he saved the whole of mankind.”
“Modern readers are interested, however, not only in the lessons that these stories convey, but also in their historical value. Does the book of Joshua give a reliable account of what actually happened when the children of Israel entered into the Promised Land? Are these stories historically accurate? ”
Good question Bart. My understanding – albeit from reading the literature many years ago – is a general assumption that little, if any, is accurate. Specifically, that the Deuteronomic History presents a narrative in which the peoples of the historic Kingdoms of Israel and Judah both descended almost entirely from incoming wanderers, escaping from Egypt. Whereas in fact, descendants of an incoming group (if that happened at all) were far outnumbered by those from existing inhabitants – of one sort or another.
Which (if true) might represent one reason for the ‘herem’ accounts being uncompromising. The Deuteronomists were seeking to establish a ‘novel’ policy of extreme purity – with reference to non-Israelite traditions. To do that they needed to establish this policy as not new at all; but arising from an invented original ‘tabula rasa’, in which the land was utterly emptied.
Yes, I pretty much agree with that. Hey, should we party?
Wow, Tom! With Bart Ehrman’s comment to you here, I think you just won the internet! 🙂
I once believed the Bible was the word of God. But when I read about these God ordered massacres such as the ones you’ve mentioned, I would just gloss over them. I wanted to believe in God, so I put these parts of the Bible out of my mind.
Do you think the story of Ananias and Sapphira in the book of Acts is a similar Christian lesson like Achan: you can’t fool God and if you try He will destroy you?
Similar, yes. A different principle in detail, but a similar point.
woow, I also remembered this story about Ananias and Sapphira when reading the post !! !!
And I think this story is purely Luke invention and a warning for those who being rich wanted to join the early church in order to become richer….by the way it would be fine if Bart engages in a book about Acts, perhaps after that about Revelation.
Destroy you if you try to cheat him – sometimes! Plenty of people lie about their spirituality and nothing happens to them despite the story of Annanias and Saphira.
I wonder if the whole story was made up or if Peter, who was known to be ready with the sword, actually found out about the deception somehow (somebody dobbed?) and killed Annanias and Saphira and got away with it because of his position in the church.
In the story Peter knew:
-The amount of money the church treasurer received , say 100.000
-The amount of money the buyer really paid, say 120.000 (he knew the buyer)
-That Saphira was with Annanias when the buyer give them 120.000 but was Annnanias alone the one who give the church treasurer the 100.000
But Peter didn’t know what happened with the lost 20.000, and he wanted to find out.
He asked Annanias first about the price he sold the “property”
Annanias answered “100.000” so the church treasurer didn’t take part of the money for himself.
But Peter went further to know if Annanias took the money for himself alone and then asked Sapphira the same question.
Answering “we sold it for 120.000” would mean that Sapphira didn’t know about the subtraction Annanias did , but she answered “we sold it for 100.00”, that’s why Luke says “With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. ”
I think all the story was made up because the author of Luke didn’t know almost anything about Peter , it was a warning like that of Acts 19:13-16 .
Building on your recent postings about Peter/Cephas/Simon I have been trying to read more on this subject. In so doing I encountered the fact that Paul (1 Cor 15) claims that Jesus appeared (first in the list) to Cephas and yet there is no record in the gospels as to when this occurred. I subsequently noted, however, that in the Emmaus story Cleopas and his companion dash back to Jerusalem and tell of their meeting with Jesus and (Luke 24) they begin this with the statement that ‘he has appeared to Simon’ (v34). (The KJV gives this as ‘Peter’.) From this I have seen it suggested that Cleopas’ unnamed companion was, in fact, Peter and this Emmaus story conceals the appearance to Peter.
Please are you able to comment on this possibility?
Yes, that is often thought to be reflecting the same tradition. By the time of the later Gospels, certainly by John and probably earlier, Christians were not differentiating between Simon bar-Jonas and Cephas.
Assuming we take the story here as seriously as a fundamentalist would: 1. How do you reconcile this with Jesus as a Jew? This would have been the God Jesus worshipped. A destroyer of the other, the non-Jew, the Gentile, the pagan. 2 How do you get from this to a “mission to the gentiles”? Do you do it by saying that God can change His spots? Change his “mind”? Do you get there by claiming that Jesus did NOT worship that God?? How does that make any sense? If you accept as inerrant literal truth that old testament story, and accept as inerrant literal truth the NT stories about Jesus, and the mission of Paul, it seems that you have a very serious case of pretzel logic/double think going on– don’t you? Or am I missing something?
1. It was a unique situation not to be duplicated; 2. God wanted to save the sinners; the earlier ones refused to repent.
Good question! I await your conclusion – are these stories historically accurate?
Bart asks, “Does the book of Joshua give a reliable account of what actually happened when the children of Israel entered into the Promised Land? Are these stories historically accurate?”
Happily, archaeology has ascertained that they are not. It was a great relief to me when I found that out.
However, it’s still embarrassing, to put it mildly, that these accounts of genocide were accepted without a murmur of protest (that I know of) by either Jews or Christians for centuries. I get the logic — the Israelites were acting under the direct command of God, and he has the “right” to destroy his creations — but I can’t accept its heartlessness. Given that God is omnipotent, there are lots of kinder ways the presence of potentially influential pagans could have been dealt with.
Hello!
My apologies for the unrelated issue.
I bought the book “Misquoting Jesus” translated into Serbian. It is mentioned there – the “Johannine Comma,” and in Serbian Comma is translated into “zapeta”, which also means a punctuation mark.
Obviously “comma” represents the same in English.
What is the reason that word “comma” is used to denote
1 John 5: 7-8. ???
Is there any other meaning for “comma” in English?
Wow. Now *that’s* interesting! A “comma” in grammar refers to a portoin of a sentence or statement of a certainly length that contains it’s own coherent thought. In modern languages we separate those thought units off with a punctuation mark (a comma). But Greek grammarians, for example, speak of “commas” not as punctuation marks but as sense units.
Re: historical value (which is more up my ally as an Assyriologist) archaeological research has provided limited assistance for the reconstruction of the invasion. True – Violation of the herem by Achan interrupted the smooth annexation of the land, and it was not possible for the invasion to proceed harmoniously until he and all in the corporate body of his family were exterminated. Subsequently Ai fell. But – Excavation at Jericho produced no evidence for the Hebrew attack because erosion had washed away all remains but there is no reason to doubt the Jericho tradition. The problem of Ai must remain unsolved. Of the cities of the southern coalition both Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir) and Eglon (possibly Tell el-Hesi) have produced evidence of destruction in the 13th century; Hebron (Jebel er-Rumeide) is being excavated; Jarmuth (Khirbet Yarmuk) has not been explored; and Jerusalem, if it fell in the 13th century (cf. Josh. 15:63), was rebuilt and reoccupied so that it had to be reconquered when David came to the throne (II Sam. 5:6-9). Other sites, Bethel (Beitan), Tell Beit Mirsim (possibly Debir) and far to the north, Hazor (Tell el-Qedah) reveal 13th century destruction, supporting the thesis of a Hebrew invasion.
Professor Ehrman,
I’ve asked you four times now, still no answer. What is Jesus’s answer to Judas’s question on page 55 of the Gospel of Judas: “What will those baptized in your Name do?”
The lacuna on page 56 is too short to hide his answer. His answer, please?
Since the nine lines that contain the answer are missing, we don’t know.
Bart,
There are SIX lines missing on page 56 in the Gospel of Judas.
I don’t know which version you use. The best: Lance Jenott. The first lacuna of two is 2-3-4. Line four is a partial: “… it will” Five is, “wipe out the entire race [of the earthly Adam].” So this isn’t his answer. He is setting it up.
Seven-eight is, “he who bears me will be tortured.” He isn’t yet answering Judas’s question, “What will those baptized in my Name DO?”
Nine-eleven is, “I tell you [pl.], no hand of a dying mortal will fall upon me.” This line isn’t what you think. It is NOT about Jesus. He would not switch so casually from answering the question to talking about HIMSELF. This is when KNOWING a Master helps. I know they don’t talk about THEMSELVES.
He goes on, “Those who sacrifice to Saklas will die.” Only now, with lacuna #2 does he answer Judas, lines 15-16-17 —“… every wicked thing.” This blank *must* read, “Those baptized in my Name will forsake [every wicked thing].” Judas is then told he will exceed them. “You will sacrifice the one who bears me.” – HIMSELF!
There is ANOTHER, wholly independent, way to tell how the Gospel of Judas reads. Page 33, lines 1-3;
“For indeed there is another who will *take your place,* so that the twelve [elements] shall
be complete in their god.” (Jenott)
This ISN’T about Matthias! First of all, he isn’t mentioned. And if the story of Judas and Acts came first, he WOULD have been. And, the author says here it isn’t even about completing a circle of twelve DISCIPLES, like scholars may have thought in 2006. It is (again) about a deeply spiritual experience with the Master. You may not recognize it, because you do not HAVE one. I do. I know what he is being told here. Jesus is telling Judas that he — Jesus — will replace him, spiritually. He is being told “the mysteries of the kingdom,” page 35, 35.25.
He means Judas, just like the climax on page 56: “You will exceed them all. You will sacrifice the man who bears me.” Nothing in biblical studies is more important. Jesus’s death on the cross as supposedly supreme ‘sacrifice’ was born of something a Master told his premier disciple. They would merge beings, spiritually.
When I read things like this, it seems that the basic Judeo-Christian message is to obey God, do God’s will, be submissive. If one does this, then things will turn out for the best. If not, then watch out. No doubt it precedes the NT but it seems like Jesus interpreted God’s will as love of God and others. Much more humane but still obedience rather than free, rational choice.
Maybe the best image of God (even if s/he doesn’t exist) is of a wise, strong, and loving parent. It retains a strong sense of God’s authority. God still expects to be honored and obeyed. But the main point of obedience is the welfare of (ALL) the children.
Perhaps the next step should be that the children have grown up and are able to make their own decisions. To do so it’s not necessary to reject or suspend what the parent taught. One doesn’t start from zero. But one can critically evaluate those teachings, try to improve them, integrate new values, and make one’s own ultimate decisions about how to live.
Is it correct that doing God’s will is (one of) THE most important Biblical teaching(s)?
I’d say that’s the point of nearly the entire BIble, yes.
I’d say that’s the point of nearly the entire BIble, yes.
Archeology disproves much of it but, for a small kingdom that was most often a client state of Egypt, Syria and others from earliest times, its a strong nationalist narrative that was still going strong in the first century CE. Also, it poses the problem of just one god who must perform all the functions of the many pagan gods.
So, this exodus of million of people, chased by an Egyptian Army then wandering for 40 years and then warring on the entire Levant and leaving no archeological evidence? No, these are stories to explain and build up a religious culture.
But, to what end? Was the build up so extreme that it set the bar so high that it created the basis for the apocalyptic thinking that emerged when inevitably the Levant was conquered by mightier forces because it occupied the land route between Egypt and the other empires (Babylon, Persia, Greece snd finally Rome).
Professor Ehrman,
The Lord’s Prayer is not about God’s kingdom ON EARTH.
Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed be thy Name [‘Word’]
Thy kingdom come,
Thy will be done,
On earth as it is in Heaven…
It says nothing about any kingdom coming anywhere, what to say of ON EARTH. It says HIS WILL be done on earth, not His kingdom. This is important. I wish you would take it seriously.
Btw, it wasn’t Jesus who said it! It was JOHN — *MASTER* JOHN THE BAPTIST, in Luke 11:1 — the same John who gave ‘power to become children of God’ in John 1 before Jesus is ever mentioned. A ‘baptist’ baptizes into Word or Name. He wasn’t the first, either. Seth was, by all accounts, “when men began calling on the ‘Name’ of the Lord” — the Word of God (Apophasis Logos) …
You make this far too inscrutable. Word, Masters, transcendence. Pretty darn simple. Won’t EVER change, neither ……. 🙂 Never.
All points above came from a Master, Mahraj Charan Singh, 1918-1990.
He’s praying for God’s kingdom and will to come to earth.
1. Uh, no. Read it again. “Thy kingdom come. [Most major translations, including KJV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, Youngs Literal, and your NRV end the kingdom clause — usually with a period, some a semi-colon] Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” Pronoun “it” is third-person SINGULAR. “as IT is in heaven” can only refer to his will, not His Kingdom and His Will. That would read, “as THEY are in heaven.”
Again, nowhere is His Kingdom ever “on earth.” That’s because “the kingdom is within you” — not, “of this world.” Luke 17:21 and John 18:36.
2. John 6:40 is about physically ‘seeing’ the Master in real time. Four verses before he tells them they DID see but DIDN’T believe. Then he tells them “the Father’s will.”
3. There are six missing lines on page 56 of the Gospel Judas, in two sets of three, the first, 2-4, leading into the line about what happens to those NOT baptized in his Name. Then, 5-11, what HAPPENS TO those baptized, 12-14 that the unrepentant shall die. Not until 15-18 does Jesus say what *THEY* WILL DO. Judas will DO more. He will sacrifice “the man who bears” Jesus. That’s JUDAS.
1. You may want to look at the Greek
“I’d like you to start making comments on things other than Judas, the true identity of James, the Gospel of Judas, Masters, and related things, because I don’t think this is productive.”
You would tell a student this? I don’t see any harm. I think given your high profile on the NGS Gospel of Judas Advisor Committee you owe it to us to engage a competing view to your advisory committee conclusions that the Gospel of Judas parallels the Bible betrayal narrative. It most certainly does NOT. And I see it as crucial to understanding the entire New Testament.
Can’t you back your position up? I do: I show James and Judas share every important detail (the kiss, “Hail, Master!”, praying on a rock, three denials, etc.) between the James and Peter Apocalypses and Gospel Betrayal story, only tendentiously inverted in the Bible — and say why they do. Judas covered James — to hide him.
I wrote a book and an annotated research paper, submitted to the SBL. What if your student did this? (I’d give him a Department office!)
They either historically true – and are reprehensible.
Or they are designed as lesson about the length you need to go to in order to please God – and this lesson is equally reprehensible.
Bart,
Yes, it is your bias that prevents you from seeing
1. That The Kingdom has NOTHING to do with this world.
2. That one must actually SEE the Master, or be living CONCURRENTLY.
3. That the John1:1-13 prologue is about Master John the Baptist giving “the power to become children of God.”
4. That Judas is “the man who bears” Jesus, and succeeds him (as Master James). Judas, Jesus, Matthias, Joseph Barsabbas JUSTUS, Stephen, likely others, all cover James.
5. The Nag Hammadi James Apocalypses story of James’s mastership succession is THE ORIGIN of the Judas betrayal of Christ story in the canonical Gospels. It is *proven* by two dozen parallel details (often inverted, same as Dr. Eisenman found for Paul’s blood salvation theology and the DSS Pesherim) including the gnostic “Hail, BROTHER!” changed to the orthodox “Hail, MASTER!” in an effort to accommodate later virgin-birth ideology.
This is true, Bart. It isn’t going ANYWHERE. The core of the Pauline Gospel Jesus Christ story is a fraud on the Gnostic/Essene community or communities. Masters *must be alive concurrently* with their disciples, like John 13:1 says, and John 17:11 says Jesus himself says. All Masters throughout history have taught this — including your guy ‘Jesus.’
Maybe we should move on to discuss other things connected to the history of early Christianity. It seems this avenue is coming to a dead end. But there are lots of other issues out there — hundreds of them.
Not sure what could be more interesting than living Saviors, but, whatever. Tell you what. You move on. I’m tired of this myself now.
Bart,
I’m interested to know just what you mean by “it seems this avenue is coming to a dead end”?
Understanding the message contained in the most important biblical era manuscript of the last century *is important.* You really think scholars have it nailed down? You do realize, there is NO consensus: Good Judas/ Bad Judas. Some scholars are ‘good,’ more are ‘bad.’ They’re all wrong. All still think Judas betrays Jesus. He does NOT, and it can now be shown, and I do, that the traces of good Judas are in the canon, and in nearly every detail of “the Betrayal,” inverted. Minimizing James (‘Judas’) was the goal. Until this is recognized, there will be no further progress understanding what is really going on in the New Testament. Scholars are not experts in mysticism (Gnosticism), mystics are.
I mean we are going no where. I’d like you to start making comments on things other than Judas, the true identity of James, the Gospel of Judas, Masters, and related things, because I don’t think this is productive
Maybe we should move on to discuss other things connected to the history of early Christianity. It seems this avenue is coming to a dead end. But there are lots of other issues out there — hundreds of them.
The barbarity would probably be seen as an accurate account by the people in the ancient world (I would be interested to know if other cultures used their gods in the same manner). Whether or not that makes it historically accurate is another matter, but the propoganda would have served them well. This is a god to be feared; this is a people to be taken seriously. Better to join than to suffer a horrible fate.
Gods do whatever they want, they are above mortal reproach. Why try to fit an ancient world narrative into modern sensibilities? Besides, humans, then and now, didn’t need a god to commit the most horrific acts against each other. But possibly having a god give these orders makes it all the more terrifying.